SECOND SESSION SECOND COMMITTEE PROVISIONAL SUMMARY RECORD OF THE THIRTY-FIFTH MEETING HELD AT THE PARQUE CENTRAL, CARACAS, ON FRIDAY, 9 AUGUST 1974, AT 3.25 P.M.

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP82S00697R000300040034-6
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 5
• Document Creation Date: December 12, 2016
• Document Release Date: March 19, 2002
• Sequence Number: 34
• Publication Date: August 13, 1974
• Content Type: MIN

Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300040034-6
UNITED NATiQNS
THIRD CONFERENCE
ON THE LAW OF THE SEA
PROVISIONAL
For pfl?r~ , r?i? 1a 2
;r, `?%t ! 2/2S2.S 35
13 August 1974
Second Session
SECOND COMMITTEE
PROVISIONAL SUMMARY RECORD OF THE THIRTY-FIFTH MEETING
Held at the Parque Central, Caracas,
on Friday, 9 August 1974, at 3.25 p.m.
Chairman :
Mr. AGUILAR Venezuela
Raplporteur: Mr. NAINTDAI!T
CONTENTS
Fij i
Rights and interests of shelf-locked States and States with narrow shelves
or short coastlines (continued)
Archipelagos
Corrections to this record should be. submitted in one of the four working
languages (English, French, Russian or Spanish), preferably in the same language as the.
text to which they refer. Corrections should be sent in quadruplicate within five
working days to the Chief, Documents Control, Room 9, Nivel Lecuna, Edificio Anauco,
and also incorporated in one copy of the record.
AS THIS RECORD WAS DISTRIBUTED ON 13 AUGUST ?1974, THE TIi2L?'-LIMIT FOR CORRECTIONS
WILL BE 20 AUGUST 1974.
The co-operation of participants in strictly observing this time-limit would be
greatly appreciated.
C-5401
Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300040034-6
 Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300040034-6
A/COrF.62/C.2/Sa.35
English
Edge. 2,
RIGHTS AND INTERESTS OF SHELF-LOCKED STATES AND STATES WITH NARROW SHELVES OR SHORT
COASTLINES (A/9021) (crntinued)
14r. ROBINSON (Jamaica) asked that when preparing the informal working paper,
the officers of the Committee should bear in mind his delegation's proposal in document
A/COrF.62/C.2/L.35 in so far as it related to the present item.
i+Myr. BPOWNE (Barbados) said he was completing the statement he had made at the
22nd meeting during the discussion of the exclusive economic zone; that concept could
not be divorced from the notion of geographically disadvantaged States.
His country supported the concept of the exclusive -economic zone as a fundamental
notion embodying the principles of sovereignty over renewable and non-renewable resources
and of access by developing geographically disadvantaged States to the living-resources
of the economic zones of the countries of -a region, on equitable terms. It -did not
support the concept as a new economic order for some developing countries to the
exclusion of others. Words of sympathy for the situation of the developing geographically
disadvantaged countries were not enoucjh: what those countries wanted was a clear and
unambiguous provision in the treaty providing for their access to the living resources
of a region. He therefore supported the proposals submitted by Jamaica in documents
A/C0NF.62/C.2/L.35 and L.36.
He could not agree with those who claimed that the concept of geographically
disadvantaged States was too vague or too difficult to define or that it was of
secondary concern compared wit--i the concept of land-locked States. The Conference's
task was to create -a new and equitable law, not to create exceptions which discriminated
against a poor section of the international community. The concept certainly had meaning
to countries like his own, which were small and poor, with narrow continental shelves
and few marine resources. An exclusive economic zone would be'meaningless to his
country-without access on equitable terms to the living resources of the countries of
the region. -'
The respective rights and obligations of States were set forth satisfactorily in
article 2 of the Jamaican proposal, though he would prefer to see the words "on terms and
conditions which are equitable to the States concerned" inserted in paragraph 1 and
the words: "on the basis of regional, subregional and bilateral agreements or other
arrangements which have legal effect in international law" inserted in paragraph 2. He
was also satisfied with the definition of developing geographically disadvantaged
Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300040034-6
 Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300040034-6
A/CONF.62/C.2fSR.35
English
Page 3
(Mr. Browne, Barbados)
countries contained in article 5 of the Jamaican proposal, which covered the situation
of countries like Barbados. There seemed to be embodied in the principle of the
disadvantaged State the notion that the economy of that State must inevitably be
adversely affected in some substantial way.by the new regime for the exclusive economic
zone, although that regime had in reality been intended to benefit, not harm, the
economies of such countries.
Although he had confined his statement to the developing geographically
disadvantaged countries, he supported the general proposals concerning the right of
the land-locked countries to free access to the sea and its living resources in a
region. Those countries must also be provided for in a treaty intended to be of
balanced political and economic benefit to the whole community of nations.
Mr. van der ESSEN.(Belgium) said that the item under discussion was not
itself ,a problem, but was closely related to other questions of the law of the. sea.
Adoption of the concept of a broad economic zone adjacent to the territorial. sea would
mean that ships from many countries with narrow seas could reach the ocean.only by
crossing the adjacent zones of other countries., These countries with narrow seas
should be given adequate guarantees to ensure them freedom of navigation between their
ports and the sea without being subject to the arbitrary. jurisdiction of the.coastal
States. It would be reasonable for those countries to respect the coastal State's
jurisdiction in respect of international measures on pollution, for example; but
compliance with national regulations, which might vary widely from country to country,
could place them in an impossible position and endanger their maritime activities.
Furthermore, their fishermen should be able to cross the economic zones of other
countries with their catches, without the risk of being suspected of illegal fishing.
Those problems were of vital importance to the geographically disadvantaged
countries, in particular those with access to semi-enclosed seas which engaged in
fishing, activities. His country, which had only 67 km of coastline, bordering on a
narrow sea, but possessed the fourth largest world port in terms of tonnage, was very
interested in the issue. However, the guarantees it called for should also benefit
the land-locked countries. It was essential for the.future Convention to provide and
guarantee the right of access to the sea and.the right to participate inthe use of the
sea for all countries with similar handicaps.
Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300040034-6
 Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300040034-6
A/CONF.62/C.2/SR.35
n3lish
Pc le 4
MT. JU1IUS (liberia) said that there was a wide disparity between the positions
of couiitries'like his own which did not possess wide continental shelves and those with
shelves extending hundreds of miles beyond the contemplated 200 mile economic zone. The
only way to renove such disparities was to abolish the idea of the continental shelf,
That would also give meaning and content to the idea of treating the high seas as the
common heritage of mankind, which was the aim of the Conference.
Mr. CHAO (Singapore) said that the representatives of Nigeria and other
countries, at previous meetings, had raised two very interesting ideas: first that
developed disadvantaged States should not ask for a share in the resources of the sea;
and secondly, that some land-locked States possessed mineral resources on land and
should also not ask for a share in the sea's resources.
He agreed in principle with the idea that the sea's resources should go only to the
most deserving. If development disqualified a disadvantaged State from obtaining the
resources of the sea, developed coastal States should also be disqualified. Similarly,
if the availability of land. mineral resources disqualified disadvantaged States, it
should also disqualify coastal Mates. It followed, therefore, that a coastal State
which was either developed or possessed mineral resources on land should not claim an
economic zone or rights over the sea-bed. Marine areas not claimed by coastal States
according to those criteria should fall under the jurisdiction of an international ocean
authority which would manage them for the benefit of all mankind. He commended such a
refreshing approach, under which there would be no need to differentiate between
advantaged and geographically disadvantaged States.
However, the Nigerian delegation's proposals in document A/CONF.52/C.2/L.2l/Rev.l
did not differentiate between developing or developed coastal States which did or did
not possess mineral resources on land. In other words, any coastal State, irrespective
of development or of mineral potential on land, was entitled to claim an economic zone.
Then why should those t -do considerations apply to the disadvantaged States? 1?7hy the
double standard and discrimination? Rules or criteria should be applied uniformly.
It should be remembered that a developed land-locked State sharing the resources of
the economic zone would be sharing the resources of a developed neighbour. If it were
ar6med that a developed land-locked State should not share in the resources of the
economic zone, then the developed coastal State would be in a more advantageous position
Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300040034-6
 Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300040034-6
AJco 62/C.2i ?35
English
Page 5
(HHIr. Chao, Singapore)
than the developing coastal State which had to share with its. _dev-eloping land-locked
States. That would clearly create a ridiculous situation.
If the higerian representative was contemplatin4J introducing those new ideas,
namely considerations of development and of mineral potential on land, into his proposal,
his own dale ation would like to co-operate with him and perhaps become a sponsor of
the final proposal.
It had also been argued that the right over the sea's mineral resources was an
All countries had
acquired right under the 1958 Convention on the Continental Shelf.
acquired rights over the resources of the sea. The somewhat contradictory reasoning
advanced to justify the establishment of an economic zone and the retention by the
coastal State of the benefits derived from exploitation of the mineral resources of that
zone suggested that there was an Eleventh Commandment: "Thou shalt obey the
Continental Shelf Convention but thou shalt not obey the other three Geneva Conventions."
The suggestion that the proposals submitted by the land-locked and geographically
disadvantaged States in document A/CONF.62/C.2/L.39 were an attempt to dominate the
coastal States was unjustified. His delegation could not support the proposals
submitted by Pakistan in document A/COi\IF.62/C.2/L.k3: the disadvantaged States wanted
justice, not charity.
The expression "geographically disadvantaged States" must be clearly defined. The
definition contained in document A/COkTF.62/C.2/L,35 was a good attempt.
ARCHIPELAGOS
1r WILL (Indonesia) proposed that discussion should be postponed to the
next meeting, by which time he hoped that the draft articles being prepared by his own
and certain other delegations would be available.
It. was so agreed.
The meeting rose at 3.55 A.m.
/...
Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300040034-6